Facebook Bans A Billion Lives

[AndriaD]

Not every "law" or "regulation" is necessarily "right", "the ultimate truth", or even *logical*. Heck, *slavery* was perfectly legal once upon a time!

Putting aside "regulations" (maybe made on purpose to protect no-so-covert interests - the new European TPD is a fine, fine exemple of this), is it really hard to see the lack of logic behind said regulations?

It's starting to be CRYSTAL clear that congress or any other part of the gov't wouldn't know logic if it bit 'em on the ....!

Andria

 

[stevegmu]

Not every "law" or "regulation" is necessarily "right", "the ultimate truth", or even *logical*. Heck, *slavery* was perfectly legal once upon a time!

Putting aside "regulations" (maybe made on purpose to protect no-so-covert interests - the new European TPD is a fine, fine exemple of this), is it really hard to see the lack of logic behind said regulations?

What is right or wrong doesn't matter in a highly regulated society...

 

[mcclintock]

IMO, it wasn't the non-smokers who demanded the change. I think all of us knew non-smokers when we were smokers and could smoke everywhere, and in my recollection, they didn't hate on smoking. They would've probably preferred not to be around as much smoke, but didn't really care that much. I realize there are probably exceptions to what I'm saying, but my main point here is that I think it really was more of the recovering smoke addict and zealous types (like actual nazis) that changed things the other way and carried the torch for anti-smoking, and anti-public use.
[...]
but also think non-vapers are likely mostly understanding vaping right now as a recreational choice that like most recreational items has pros for its users and one of those seems to be lessening how much people are addicted to smoking.

The problem with secondhand smoke is not that it's terrible in a single circumstance, but that it's not just for today, it's continuous. A whole lifetime of SHS, vs. not, is something worth standing up for. And yet in a single case not really. When smokers asked "mind if I smoke?" not everyone realized they meant not just for today, but forever. It took awhile for the backlash to fully develop, but it was inevitable. An amazing change is the number of smokers that don't even smoke in their own house!

As to the harm reduction model, it's an attempt to maximally placate vaping's opponents. After all, supposedly the gov't has wanted smokers to quit for decades now, so it is an essential argument to make that the way things are going is a great example of bad government. At the same time, I agree it's important to note that people have a right to vaping and many other things more inherently.

 

[bigdancehawk]

I do think it's crap, but whether someone had deep enough pockets to make a legal case over it... that is indeed the question. It *ought* to be challenged, all the way to the Supreme Court, if for no other reason than conflict of interest -- congress protecting their ....-buddy BP -- but again... deep pockets indeed. Too bad we can't get Bill Gates on our team, but I think he's on BP's team -- for no reason I can figure out, god knows, he's got ENOUGH money.

But wait... once you get to billionaire status, "enough money" becomes an oxymoron, right?

Andria

Well, when it comes to e-cigarettes, it's clear that congress wasn't trying to protect BP because when the FSPTCA was passed, nobody had heard of e-cigs and the statute makes no mention of them. The definition of "tobacco product" was intended to describe stuff you can smoke or chew and nothing else was contemplated or foreseen. It made sense to exclude FDA approved NRT products.

So, what we're faced with now is a congressionally mandated framework for rigorous regulation which was designed to make it very difficult and costly to get any new tobacco smoking or chewing products approved. I don't get how they thought that would have a significant effect on the incidence of smoking or otherwise advance the public's health, but that's another issue.

What should happen now is to either exclude e-cigs from the FSPTCA or pass a new statute specifically applicable to e-cigs which would impose some common sense and easily complied with safety standards, but otherwise allow the technology to continue to evolve.

 

[AndriaD]

Well, when it comes to e-cigarettes, it's clear that congress wasn't trying to protect BP because when the FSPTCA was passed, nobody had heard of e-cigs and the statute makes no mention of them. The definition of "tobacco product" was intended to describe stuff you can smoke or chew and nothing else was contemplated or foreseen. It made sense to exclude FDA approved NRT products.

So, what we're faced with now is a congressionally mandated framework for rigorous regulation which was designed to make it very difficult and costly to get any new tobacco smoking or chewing products approved. I don't get how they thought that would have a significant effect on the incidence of smoking or otherwise advance the public's health, but that's another issue.

What should happen now is to either exclude e-cigs from the FSPTCA or pass a new statute specifically applicable to e-cigs which would impose some common sense and easily complied with safety standards, but otherwise allow the technology to continue to evolve.

I agree, because calling something that contains ZERO tobacco a "tobacco product" is just plain STUPID. Stuff that contains caffeine is not called a "coffee product," even though coffee beans are one of the richest sources, and probably are the source of all isolated caffeine which is added to so many products.

Andria

 

[bigdancehawk]

I agree, because calling something that contains ZERO tobacco a "tobacco product" is just plain STUPID. Stuff that contains caffeine is not called a "coffee product," even though coffee beans are one of the richest sources, and probably are the source of all isolated caffeine which is added to so many products.

Andria

I fully agree. However, Mitch Zeller (the FDA's tobacco control guy) has been quoted as saying that if it doesn't contain nicotine derived from the tobacco plant, then the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate it. However, if you read the deeming regulation, it seems to me that they do intend to regulate some things that don't contain tobacco, such as clearomizers, because they're excluding such things as cigarette lighters and ashtrays.

Here's the complete FSPTCA definition of tobacco product:

The term ‘tobacco product’ means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).

This violates one of the basic rules of writing definitions, which is that you should not use the defined term in the definition. If a "tobacco product" has to be "made or derived from tobacco," then what is included in "component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product"? Is a pipe or cigarette holder a tobacco product accessory? Cigar wrappers? Apparently the FDA doesn't think so, but why not? What about a cigar cutter? They've already made it clear that they consider the paper used in roll-your-own cigs to be a tobacco product. They may argue that a refillable tank is conceptually the same as RYO paper. (I'd disagree because one burns and is inhaled, whereas the other one doesn't/isn't.) I'd argue that clearos and drip tips are more like pipes, and that if anything that holds or comes in contact with e-juice or vapor is included in "tobacco product," it leads to absurd results, such as drip tips being subject to an onerous and prohibitively costly approval process.

I think valid legal arguments can be made that the statutory definition of "tobacco product" is fatally ambiguous, overly broad and void for vagueness. Regulations leading to absurd results such as those mentioned above should be deemed arbitrary and capricious, unreasonable, and serving no legitimate governmental purpose. It will be interesting to see whether those arguments and others are presented and what the outcome will be.

 

[AndriaD]

I fully agree. However, Mitch Zeller (the FDA's tobacco control guy) has been quoted as saying that if it doesn't contain nicotine derived from the tobacco plant, then the FDA has no jurisdiction to regulate it. However, if you read the deeming regulation, it seems to me that they do intend to regulate some things that don't contain tobacco, such as clearomizers, because they're excluding such things as cigarette lighters and ashtrays.

Here's the complete FSPTCA definition of tobacco product:

The term ‘tobacco product’ means any product made or derived from tobacco that is intended for human consumption, including any component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product (except for raw materials other than tobacco used in manufacturing a component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product).

This violates one of the basic rules of writing definitions, which is that you should not use the defined term in the definition. If a "tobacco product" has to be "made or derived from tobacco," then what is included in "component, part, or accessory of a tobacco product"? Is a pipe or cigarette holder a tobacco product accessory? Cigar wrappers? Apparently the FDA doesn't think so, but why not? What about a cigar cutter? They've already made it clear that they consider the paper used in roll-your-own cigs to be a tobacco product. They may argue that a refillable tank is conceptually the same as RYO paper. (I'd disagree because one burns and is inhaled, whereas the other one doesn't/isn't.) I'd argue that clearos and drip tips are more like pipes, and that if anything that holds or comes in contact with e-juice or vapor is included in "tobacco product," it leads to absurd results, such as drip tips being subject to an onerous and prohibitively costly approval process.

I think valid legal arguments can be made that the statutory definition of "tobacco product" is fatally ambiguous, overly broad and void for vagueness. Regulations leading to absurd results such as those mentioned above should be deemed arbitrary and capricious, unreasonable, and serving no legitimate governmental purpose. It will be interesting to see whether those arguments and others are presented and what the outcome will be.

Andria

 

[Kent C]

This violates one of the basic rules of writing definitions

The whole point of 'deeming' is to violate the basic rules of definitions.

Deem - to consider or judge something in a particular way:

To 'consider' or to 'judge' brings in subjectivism. ...usually by someone with authority to so change the definitions.

And that violates an objective perception of reality which follows the rules of definition.

This is done by tyrants (or people striving to be tyrants) all the time - changing objective reality to abide by their own subjective ideas. "Equality" (and 'fair as in 'fair share') is a good example. Equality now means treating citizens unequally. Taking from some to give to others. Giving to others and not giving to all. It deems "inequality" as "equality". There are so many other examples too numerous to list. :- )

The old High German origin of 'deem' is 'to doom'.

 

[navigator2011]

The whole point of 'deeming' is to violate the basic rules of definitions.

Deem - to consider or judge something in a particular way:

To 'consider' or to 'judge' brings in subjectivism. ...usually by someone with authority to so change the definitions.

And that violates an objective perception of reality which follows the rules of definition.

This is done by tyrants (or people striving to be tyrants) all the time - changing objective reality to abide by their own subjective ideas. "Equality" (and 'fair as in 'fair share') is a good example. Equality now means treating citizens unequally. Taking from some to give to others. Giving to others and not giving to all. It deems "inequality" as "equality". There are so many other examples too numerous to list. :- )

The old High German origin of 'deem' is 'to doom'.

"Like" x 10^1000 . . . because one like is not enough!

 

[Ozzie_J]

Facebook is a joke. It's Twitter's uglier, less intelligent, less funny, more socially awkward, sibling!

 

[Tache]

Deem - to consider or judge something in a particular way:

I like this simplistic and to the point definition: Deeming is saying something is, what it isn't.

 

[Kent C]

I like this simplistic and to the point definition: Deeming is saying something is, what it isn't.

Yes, the simple truth exposes the obfuscation - "deeming" replaces objectivity with subjectivity.

 

[AndriaD]

Exactly as I have been saying since Jan 2014... "Deeming" is "The Emperor's New Clothes" brought to modern times. And apparently nobody in DC has the sense or the guts to see that the emperor is stark naked and to say it out loud.

And these are the people (well some of them) that we've elected. It makes the idea of a new revolution not only palatable, but damn near irresistible.

Andria

 

[navigator2011]

... And these are the people (well some of them) that we've elected...

And, I'll betcha they all get re-elected, too.